Looks like the Chinese have not figured out that there is lots of money to be made with such a set ... if they ever do make a chess set made out of Canon & Nikon replica lenses, I bet it would be sold out faster than they could manufacture in the first year.

I just love speculating that the 7D 2 will be APS-H to see the APS-C crowd reactions

it's like a wind up toy that you wind up and let go and they bounce around all over the place make lots of noise then calm down eventually... until you wind them up again!

No, everyone knows that the 5D3 has superior IQ to the 7D so if you want a new APS-H camera call it the 5D Mark IV. A smaller, lighter body than a 1 series and the "5D Mark IV" would recall the 1D Mark IV and may help boost sales.

Sorry the only reason i chimed in was to bring in the correlation of higher megapixel aps-c not necessarily being a bad thing, if anything its a testing ground for the next set off FF sensors for each manufacturer.

The D800 has the same density as a 18 MP APS-C and its performance is stellar. The new generation 24MP aps-c's dont seem too bad either, but will require refined glass much like the 7D did.

Green tint on the D4 no, even my left focus array wasn't a problem.

D800 on the other hand, I got re-calibrated for left focus points being out and I got the workshop to custom calibrate the LCD (definitely green). Luckily in the city I live in we have a Nikon repair shop so its a same day procedure.

I personally dislike the size of the D600 - the camera and the images are nice but I can't physically hold the unit cause its just too darn small.

But that could be said about all Nikon bodies as I find the D4 just a touch too small in comparison to my old 1DX - that grip was perfect for my hand.

No reason at all to be sorry!

Regarding the green tint of the LCD, what caused that?

It's interesting you mention the size of the Nikon D600 being too small. I didn't realize it was much different than the 800. That said, I find the 800 (and 700) too big...or rather, the reach out to the shutter button, seems like it is perched out on a ledge a long ways ahead of the front of, say a 50mm lens. It's probably not actually that far, but it feels it. I wear a size 10 glove, my fingers aren't overly stubby, but it does feel like you need 6 inch long fingers to get the right grip, on Nikon's grip. By contrast, all of Canon's bodies feel like the same fit in my hand, going from XXD series to 1 series. I notice the increased size and weight of the body, but the grip feels the same. I enjoy the grip, and it's odd how after a while, it feels like you're not holding anything in your hand.

I also think the size of the control dial on the back of the D800 is silly. It's not much bigger than my finger...at least Canon's dial is the right size. I wouldn't want to get used to that.

Nikon seem committed to these ergonomics, so I don't see myself ever using one. I also don't like their lens lineup as much as Canon's, nor do I like the fact that many of their non-super-telephoto lenses, are priced above a similar lens offered from Canon, yet are sometimes an older design, that can even be inferior in some ways. The Nikon 135 f/2, is the best example.

All of that said, I still like what Nikon was able to achieve with the D800. When it first came out, I was trying to decide how much I wanted one, and if I was willing to sell my Canon lenses. It turns out the choice to stay with Canon wasn't very difficult at all, for me. For anyone (like yourself) who likes the D800 more than Canon, I can certainly understand why you would switch! It sounds like you're putting it to good use...no doubt better use than I'm able to do with my photography at the present. I don't blame Canon for this at all though, it's only myself.

No idea what caused the green tint - nikon doesn't officially say it's an issue, the stand that nikon takes is the cameras meters are the most sensitive to date and the wb is more accurate then previous models - I have sat with nps(cps) on so many occasions - unofficially - they have confirmed there is a beta firmware in the works which I will get my dirty hands on to test soon enough that is meant to fix this problem that isn't a problem lol!

I never found the shutter release positioning to be awkward surprisingly - its actually more comfortable on the D4 (enhanced ergos) - I used to miss the control wheel off my canon but tbh the layout on the d800 makes more sense then the d4 in terms of fec control is in an awkward place on the d4 - albeit its in the same spot on the Canon 1 series anyway - on the d800 its instantly accessible with your left index as it hugs the camera body left of the lens mount

Nikon does need to get rid of that ridiculous D-Pad - they copied canons joystick and improved on it with "click to EL" but then duplicates the controls on the D-Pad, I have asked that each direction become programmable but i suspect that's too much of an ask.

I initially hated nikons lens line up - I refused to believe anything could be better then my old L glass - I really missed my 300 f4 IS (I never needed a f2. but I honestly love my 24-70 2.8G (spanks both MK I copies I had on canon) the 70-200 VR II is excellent and but I feel it doesn't quite match the IS MK II in terms of VR - the nikons is better balanced in hand but its about half an inch longer so just a touch harder to pack. I love my 85 1.8G and my 50 1.8G - I miss my 85 1.2L but the 1.8 trilogy from nikon is superb - out resolves nearly all the 1.4 glass on either brand. Regard to the 135 f2 - yes the canon is gorgeous - no question, but I actually rather like the 135 f2 DC - its a very unique lens the defocus control is "interesting".

I still have my canon film bodies - I'll never give them up but at the end of the day they are all just recording devices - It's just what works better for what you do

On a side note - if you pick up a d600, d800 or d4 vs their older bodies - the vf markings and controls are Canonesque - by default... older nikon shooters have to revert to non factory settings if they want to use the unit how they always have - for example: how they are used too where the light meter is + 0 - not - 0 + (and seriously it makes no sense being + 0 - right? ) they even allowed for easy ec via thumb controls ala canon. It's as if they built these units with the mindset of allowing for the transitions between the brands. Outside of the missing wheel it felt like second nature for me - honestly. Pick up a D700 and it's all backwards.

The Canon 70-200mm f4 and the Canon 70-200 IS f4 are the same optical design in terms of layout. Two ways in which this can be improved is glass type and the coating both of which have improved since the original design and this is likely where improvements were made i.e. resolution improvements by controlling CA etc. Interestingly crown glass cannot be purchased made using lead due to environmental reasons this actually was a backwards step in clarity, unless for military use. When thinking about image improvements the whole chain needs to be considered not just the sensor but processing, DAC, OPLF even the air gap between lens and filter before the sensor. Smaller pixels require to be optimised at a different MTF frequency than larger pixels to a degree this means Canon could if they wanted make the EF & the EF-S lenses very different beasts but legacy and inter-operability of EF lenses actually hold this back. Making high performance lenses costs money, lots of money for instance an Arri Alexa cinematography camera is close to a APS-H sensor in size but the images have to be shown on huge screens so any weakness in the lenses is immediately found out hence these lenses range from $ 15000 anywhere up to $100,000 and must work flawlessly between -25C to 40C. Truth is most L glass is NOT optimised for the 1.6X cameras but for the larger pixels on the FF cameras but its still better than the bulk of the EF-S lenses that are made more to a price. So optimising lenses to pixel pitch as the MP goes up is crutial. Think about this also why did Leica go to S2?

Truth is most L glass is NOT optimised for the 1.6X cameras but for the larger pixels on the FF cameras but its still better than the bulk of the EF-S lenses that are made more to a price. So optimising lenses to pixel pitch as the MP goes up is crutial.

This USED to be the case. Canon's new generation of lenses, starting with the EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS II and EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS II in 2011, the EF 500mm f/4 L IS II and EF 600mm f/4 L IS II, along with more recent lenses like the EF 24-70 f/2.8 L II, most definitely up the ante. I've used several of these lenses, and they are MOST DEFINITELY optimized for high density sensors. There is no question they thoroughly outresolve my Canon 7D, which has a 4.3 micron pixel pitch. I would not be surprised if Canon's new generation of lenses is prepped for at least 60-70mp FF sensors down the road, if not much higher resolution sensors than that.

In a test done by Art Moriss comparing the EF 800mm f/5.6 L IS with the EF 600mm f/4 L IS II with both the 1.4x and 2x TC's, the new 600mm lens was without question sharper than the 800mm lens, both in the center of the lens as well as at the edge. The differences were obvious to the naked eye, and even with post-process sharpening the 800 couldn't keep up.

Canon is preparing for a future of very high resolution sensors with a new round of exceptionally high powered lenses. L-series glass is most definitely optimized for high density 24-30mp APS-C (1.6x crop), and I think they could potentially be ready, on the high end, for sensors with pixels as small as 2.5 microns (135mp FF, 52mp APS-C), maybe as small as 2 microns (215mp FF, 84mp APS-C).

I've used several of these lenses, and they are MOST DEFINITELY optimized for high density sensors. There is no question they thoroughly outresolve my Canon 7D, which has a 4.3 micron pixel pitch. I would not be surprised if Canon's new generation of lenses is prepped for at least 60-70mp FF sensors down the road, if not much higher resolution sensors than that.

What is the business idea behind something like that? How many years will pass before we see sensors like that, let alone Canon sensors like that?

Making a lense that will still shine in 20 years sounds really cool. But how much does it cost? What is the risk that they'll end up with a nice set of chess pieces that cannot be sold because unforeseen interior/exterior changes (such as the move from FD to EF) pressure them into doing something else?

-h

First, realize that Canon has already done this. It isn't an idea, it's a simple fact. Rent the EF 600mm f/4 L IS II lens, and you'll see what I am talking about. Anyone who thinks a Canon 7D is soft, pop on a 24-70/2.8 II, 300, 400, 500, or 600mm L IS II, and the sheer resolving power of the 7D will finally reveal itself...without any softness anywhere to be seen.

As for the business value behind Canon's new lenses, I figure fundamentally it is the same as what was behind the original versions of the same lenses they replace. Canon's previous 300, 400, 500, and 600mm lenses all lasted for well over a decade, with an interim update to add 2-stop IS. Those puppies upon introduction cost roughly the same as the new generation does, which ranges from ~$8000 on the short end to ~$13,000 on the long end. I don't see any significant nominal price difference, and factoring in inflation, the current generation of lenses is actually cheaper than their predecessors. They are the most-used professional grade lenses in the world, ubiquitously seen at sports events, the Olympics, used by wildlife photographers and bird photographers, pretty much anything that needs the best quality and the greatest reach, at least two out of three times (if not much more than that) you'll see someone choosing a Canon supertelephoto lens. While Canon may no longer be the creme of the crop when it comes to sensors, I don't think you will find many photographers who even had the thought to question the quality of Canon's glass. It is second to none, and with recent advancements, I'd wager that Canon glass is just as food as Zeiss most of the time, if not better in a few cases (such as the 300mm and 600mm Mark II superteles.)

From a technological standpoint, the resolving power of the last generation of Canon lenses WAS beginning to show it's inferiority in light of increasingly dense digital image sensors that are finding their way into cameras. While techy geeks like you and I may understand the value of the sensor outresolving the lens, the majority of photographers expect impeccably sharp images strait out of camera. There is no questing that Canon's new line of lenses outperforms, in many cases by a very significant margin, the lenses they replace. The only logical conclusion I can really come to is that Canon is preparing for a future where the average sensor resolution is higher than today by enough of a margin that it warrants replacing all of the significant lenses in their L-series lens lineup.

As for when we might see sensors that need this level of resolution...not long. The 7D clearly needed better lenses than a significant majority of Canon's lens lineup prior to the release of the Mark II generation (pretty much every lens I've used on it resulted in some softness to some degree, with the exception of the 300mm f/2.8 L IS first generation and the 100mm L macro lens, and probably the 24 TS-E, 400, 500, and 600mm lenses from the same generation.) If the 7D Mark II really does land at 24.1mp, that is equivalent to a 62mp FF sensor...so we might only have to wait a few months before we see the kind of sensor that can thoroughly utilize lenses with much higher resolving power. If we get 24.1mp 1.6x APS-C sensors this year, within 3-4 years I think we could see 32mp APS-C sensors...or the equivalent of 82mp FF sensors. Within a decade? Hell, if we keep increasing sensor resolution by 20-30% per generation, we could see 50mp APS-C sensors and 140mp APS-C sensors within the decade. I don't know how likely a linear progression of sensor density is...but we already have sensors with pixel pitches approaching the 1 micron scale that produce great IQ...so I don't think it is technologically improbable by any means.

Finally, regarding a mount change...I don't foresee that happening any time soon. EF was a calculated move that Canon made, knowing the risks, in order to open up new possibilities that were not possible or too costly to apply to the FD mount. Given the fact that Canon has expanded EF mount compatibility to the EOS-M line, which should have a long and healthy life decades into the future, and given that Canon has demonstrated an ability to enhance their AF and IS capabilities by improving the firmware of lens and camera without changing the mount, I think EF is here to stay long into the future. I have no worries about a mount change.

Jrista, the inflation argument doesn't quite hold up, when you factor in the falling price of the Japanese Yen relating to the dollar. Japan's currency has been devalued over the last decade, moreso than the dollar (not an easy thing to do). Also realize there has been very little inflation in the USA since 2008.

That said, probably no one can seriously doubt the resolution of their new supertelephoto lenses.

Sycotek, I can't believe Nikon still haven't officially admitted the green tint is an issue, it's been over a year! As for you not missing the ergonomics of Canon...all I can say is, I would.

Jrista, the inflation argument doesn't quite hold up, when you factor in the falling price of the Japanese Yen relating to the dollar. Japan's currency has been devalued over the last decade, moreso than the dollar (not an easy thing to do). Also realize there has been very little inflation in the USA since 2008.

That said, probably no one can seriously doubt the resolution of their new supertelephoto lenses.

Sycotek, I can't believe Nikon still haven't officially admitted the green tint is an issue, it's been over a year! As for you not missing the ergonomics of Canon...all I can say is, I would.

Well, the inflation rates for each year since 2008 have been: 0.1%, 2.7%, 1.5%, 3.0%, 1.7% and 1.6%. IN 2008, we did indeed have very little inflation, however since 2008 the rate has been between half of average to average for the years before 2008. According to this official inflation calculator, a $12,999 item from 2008 would cost $13,903 today. As I said, the current prices, in US dollars for US consumers, is at the very least the same, if not less, than they were in 2008. That said, the original 600mm lens with the original non-IS design appeared in 1988 (it's actually a bit older than I thought, it had over a 10-year life before the IS update), and was refreshed to the previous design with 2-stop IS in 1999. At it's introduction, the last 600mm f/4 L IS USM lens cost...you guessed it, $12,999. At the time, that was 1,290,000 yen. In late 2008, it was worth about 1,650,000 yen, and today it is still worth around 1,300,000 yen (BTW, inflation rate in the yen has been slightly negative more than positive since 1998, and was recently -0.3% as of January, thanks to the Bank of Japan intentionally keeping the rate low so as to support carry trades (http://www.wikinvest.com/currency/Japanese_Yen_(JPY))...so I am assuming 1.3 million yen in 1999 is still roughly equivalent to 1.3 million yen today.) Accounting for inflation since 1999, the IS refresh of the 600mm lens would have cost $17,968 in today-dollars.

The current version of the lens costs about the same in Japanese yen today as it did in 1999...and is $5000 cheaper in inflation-adjusted USD today...so I stand by my statements. The cost is pretty much just what it costs for a hand-made lens that good.

I'm not sure I agree with all of your numbers and your logic. I was referring to the "decade" time-frame. My cousin bought his 600 f/4 new back around 2005 (8 years ago), and paid around $7500 for it. And, if you applied your logic to other consumer goods such as japanese automobiles, then an entry-level japanese sedan selling ten years ago (2003) for $23,000, it would sell today for ~$29,000. Meaning there would be no entry level japanese sedans selling for under $29,000 msrp. Yet the $23,000 category is still alive and well, and the car itself is generally better equipped, better performing, safer, and is more fuel efficient.

The American economy has stagnated since 2008, and if it's had any real inflation beyond a yearly average of 1%, while GDP growth has barely stayed ahead of that (negative for a year or more of that time), on average...combined with a 70% increase of the national debt since that time...then we're in real trouble. But of course, we are. Do you realize the debt is growing at $40,000 per second?

I had the 100L 2.8 and loved it - sharpest lens I had owned up to then.

But, I found that for street photography, the fixed focal length was deal-breaker. I'd far rather go for a zoom. I know you'd compromise on certain things, such as having to carry around a big white lens if you try the 70-200L II or a slower max aperture if you go for the 24-105L, but I found a zoom essential for street pics.

I'm not sure I agree with all of your numbers and your logic. I was referring to the "decade" time-frame. My cousin bought his 600 f/4 new back around 2005 (8 years ago), and paid around $7500 for it. And, if you applied your logic to other consumer goods such as japanese automobiles, then an entry-level japanese sedan selling ten years ago (2003) for $23,000, it would sell today for ~$29,000. Meaning there would be no entry level japanese sedans selling for under $29,000 msrp. Yet the $23,000 category is still alive and well, and the car itself is generally better equipped, better performing, safer, and is more fuel efficient.

The American economy has stagnated since 2008, and if it's had any real inflation beyond a yearly average of 1%, while GDP growth has barely stayed ahead of that (negative for a year or more of that time), on average...combined with a 70% increase of the national debt since that time...then we're in real trouble. But of course, we are. Do you realize the debt is growing at $40,000 per second?

Oh, I think the US is doomed. We are so deep in debt there isn't any digging out of it. The $85 billion "saved" by our sequester barely covers the cost of a single week (we spend over 10 billion a day). The new tax hikes from the 2012 Fiscal Cliff only bring in $200 billion a year, which is a mere $16 billion a month (while we spend over $75 billion a week), while we also spend $1.6 trillion in borrowed money, so we are still at a net deficit of $1.4 trillion a year (however Obama's budget plan projects expenditures of $5.88 trillion by 2022, so there is effectively zero benefit from the tax hikes...period...and that doesn't account for additional Obamacare expenditures over and above existing medicare/caid expenditures, unfunded Soc. Sec. liabilities, etc.) The US is as doomed as the rest of the world. When the debt bubble finally bursts, as at some point the can being proverbially kicked down the road by the aggregate of the worlds governments will most certainly go flying off the debt cliff, the US will be at the forefront of the black-hole level mass of negative dollars sucking the entire world into the singularity of total destitution (which will most likely be followed by war, killing, mass death, and the effective razing of the earth in the nuclear fire that ensues as watever remainig powers lob their biggest bombs at each other to take control of the pitiful remnants of what was once humanity... ) Yup..we're all DOOMED!! Muhahahahaahaaaa!

BTW, I was using this CPI Inflation Calculator to determine the US dollar value of things on an inflation-adjusted scale. CPI is the official index from which inflation is calculated in the US, and the rate of inflation has ranged from 1.6% to 3% since 2008...that is slightly below the average of about 3.5% for the prior years of the decade, but closer to the average of 2% or so since the CPI index was started (1984). A lot of people consider the CPI index to be a very weak measure of inflation (I am one of them), and that other indexes such as the Everyday Price Index are a much better measure of "Real Inflation". According to EPI, real inflation since 2008 has been much closer to or above 8% when factoring in much higher energy prices and volatile & increasing base commodity prices (including food goods, base and rare earth metals which are used in all the little devices we use every day...including cameras, lenses, cell phones, tablets, etc.)

I think I was actually being very conservative with my assumptions regarding inflation. It is also very difficult to nail down inflation in other currencies, expecially when comparing apples and oranges products like cars vs. DSLR lenses directly. Too few products, too few product categories, far too few price samples of each product, etc. It is better to use official data or an official multi-currency inflation calculator. My assumptions related to the yen involve the following facts: The 1999 Yen/USD rate was 101, while the 2013 rate is pushing over 96, and is likely to reach 101 again; the price of the 600mm lens, in yen, at introduction was nearly the same as the price today; the official rate of inflation in the yen has averaged -0.15% or so since 1998, with the exception of a very large spike up to nearly 3% in the 2007-2008 financial crisis period, followed by a corresponding drop of roughly the same magnitude (~-3%) directly following (effectively canceling the spike), with the average since still in the 0 to -0.3% range. In other words...nearly zero yen inflation in a decade, approximately the same exchange rate in 1999 as today, and roughly the same price in yen then and now.

I had the 100L 2.8 and loved it - sharpest lens I had owned up to then.

But, I found that for street photography, the fixed focal length was deal-breaker. I'd far rather go for a zoom. I know you'd compromise on certain things, such as having to carry around a big white lens if you try the 70-200L II or a slower max aperture if you go for the 24-105L, but I found a zoom essential for street pics.

Yes, the 100L is a highly popular, highly sharp lens. I agree about street photography. If you only have a fixed lens, sooner or later, a truck is going to run over you as you are backing up to frame a shot! Zooms are essential...and not just for street photography. The trick is finding one you can live with, at a price you can live with.

Jrista, it seems to me, that since you're putting forth evidence that there has been no inflation in the yen in a decade or more, that this should keep prices from increasing so much, for Japanese products. Since the dollar recently has improved in relation to the yen, it's a shame the msrp of camera products from Japan, regardless of the manufacturer, have not followed suit.

I agree that energy and food prices have inflated at least 8% annually on average, if not more...and yes...we are doomed. I don't want to get overly political, but we all know who has wasted more money on nothing, literally flushed it down the toilet. It is still happening now, and will continue. Since the democratic process has failed, the solution is simple, and its not legal. Subversion. The process, not so simple, and fraught with disaster.

As for camera bodies, especially the 5D3 and 6D, their prices seem more in line with inflation...if not even a slight discount. So no one is denying their value at their current prices...they are really a bargain.

What we're really talking about here, is a lens going from approximately $8,000, to $13,000. If you're saying the 62% increase in price, is justified alone because of the US Dollar's inflation over the last decade...it is not (even 3% x 10 = 30%, not 62%). However, what you're really saying, is that the current asking price is justified, because the enhanced optical quality, resolution, weight, and other performance parameters...have increased so much that the current "generation 2" lens lineup, will not need to be replaced for at least 10 more years or so (and will be adequate resolution for 50 to 80 megapixel full frame sensors). I can agree pretty easily with this second underlying point, but not with the first.

What we're really talking about here, is a lens going from approximately $8,000, to $13,000. If you're saying the 62% increase in price, is justified alone because of the US Dollar's inflation over the last decade...it is not (even 3% x 10 = 30%, not 62%). However, what you're really saying, is that the current asking price is justified, because the enhanced optical quality, resolution, weight, and other performance parameters...have increased so much that the current "generation 2" lens lineup, will not need to be replaced for at least 10 more years or so (and will be adequate resolution for 50 to 80 megapixel full frame sensors). I can agree pretty easily with this second underlying point, but not with the first.

The lens didn't go from $8000 to $13000. It's PREDECESSOR went from $13000 to $8000 to $6500 to, in some cases, as little as $4500 for a moderately used copy with extremely minor (and otherwise meaningless) nicks and scratches on the body. Older products get cheaper, both officially and unofficially. You have to realize Canon HAS spend a huge amount of money researching new lens designs, new materials for lens elements (they were the first to use Fluorite lens elements by growing the crystals to optical grade, and are now the first company to use multiple Fluorite elements in a lens for reduced weight and superior CA control), new materials and ergonomic design for the lens barrel, new designs for significantly faster AF and IS mechanics and circuitry with longer manual focus throw, etc. Not to mention the brainpower that had to go into greatly improving the center to edge MTF of a lens that was already STELLAR! All of that R&D isn't free...it costs hundreds of millions.

The EF 600mm f/4 L IS II is not the EF 600mm f/4 L IS USM. They are different lenses, with the new Mark II being a complete redesign from the ground up. Of course it is going to cost more. Think of Canon's L-series telephoto lens line as akin to medium format digital. They are specialty products. It doesn't really matter if, generation after generation of product improvements, the price stays the same. It is a niche product, designed with the intention of being used by professionals, corporations, and extreme enthusiasts who demand the best of the best and are willing to pay for hand-crafted, top of the line superiority. MFD has remained in the $20k to $80k price range for decades. I don't foresee anything that will ever change that fact, either...its just that kind of product. It's a product of high end, top notch, hand crafted quality.

People often compare DSLR camera gear to personal computers. It isn't the same thing. Personal computing is a consumer-grade thing, is ubiquitous and intended to be cheap. That would only be similar to the P&S, Bridge, and Mirrorless camera segment...the stuff designed for mass consumption by consumers. However when you get into the enthusiast and enterprise markets of computing, prices skyrocket. It is still pretty standard practice to spend tens of thousands of dollars on powerful servers that service corporate needs, or many thousands to as much as ten to twenty thousand on a high powered enthusiast gaming PC. I remember spending $7500 on one of my ultra-overclocked, water- and peltier-cooled, gaming PC monster a DECADE ago. People are still building systems that expensive. Some people spend even more for the top of the line, fastest CPU's, the fastest memory, the fastest SSD drives (some of which pump out a gigabyte of data per second), 12-drive RAID systems, custom case enclosures and advanced custom watercooling systems, etc.

The high end is always expensive...always has been expensive...always will be expensive. In all honesty, given the radical rise in price for base metals, precious metals, even rare earth metals, (all of which are essential for the manufacture of image sensors and lenses and the like) combined with the volatility in commodity markets, leaves me rather amazed that the prices of these top-end lenses has not gone up considerably. I wouldn't have been surprised if, given the inflation in commodity markets, these new lenses (300mm, 400mm, 500mm, 600mm) hit the street at $12000-18000.

The lens didn't go from $8000 to $13000. It's PREDECESSOR went from $13000 to $8000 to $6500 to, in some cases, as little as $4500 for a moderately used copy with extremely minor (and otherwise meaningless) nicks and scratches on the body. Older products get cheaper, both officially and unofficially. You have to realize Canon HAS spend a huge amount of money researching new lens designs, new materials for lens elements (they were the first to use Fluorite lens elements by growing the crystals to optical grade, and are now the first company to use multiple Fluorite elements in a lens for reduced weight and superior CA control), new materials and ergonomic design for the lens barrel, new designs for significantly faster AF and IS mechanics and circuitry with longer manual focus throw, etc. Not to mention the brainpower that had to go into greatly improving the center to edge MTF of a lens that was already STELLAR! All of that R&D isn't free...it costs hundreds of millions.

The EF 600mm f/4 L IS II is not the EF 600mm f/4 L IS USM. They are different lenses, with the new Mark II being a complete redesign from the ground up. Of course it is going to cost more. Think of Canon's L-series telephoto lens line as akin to medium format digital. They are specialty products. It doesn't really matter if, generation after generation of product improvements, the price stays the same. It is a niche product, designed with the intention of being used by professionals, corporations, and extreme enthusiasts who demand the best of the best and are willing to pay for hand-crafted, top of the line superiority. MFD has remained in the $20k to $80k price range for decades. I don't foresee anything that will ever change that fact, either...its just that kind of product. It's a product of high end, top notch, hand crafted quality.

People often compare DSLR camera gear to personal computers. It isn't the same thing. Personal computing is a consumer-grade thing, is ubiquitous and intended to be cheap. That would only be similar to the P&S, Bridge, and Mirrorless camera segment...the stuff designed for mass consumption by consumers. However when you get into the enthusiast and enterprise markets of computing, prices skyrocket. It is still pretty standard practice to spend tens of thousands of dollars on powerful servers that service corporate needs, or many thousands to as much as ten to twenty thousand on a high powered enthusiast gaming PC. I remember spending $7500 on one of my ultra-overclocked, water- and peltier-cooled, gaming PC monster a DECADE ago. People are still building systems that expensive. Some people spend even more for the top of the line, fastest CPU's, the fastest memory, the fastest SSD drives (some of which pump out a gigabyte of data per second), 12-drive RAID systems, custom case enclosures and advanced custom watercooling systems, etc.

The high end is always expensive...always has been expensive...always will be expensive. In all honesty, given the radical rise in price for base metals, precious metals, even rare earth metals, (all of which are essential for the manufacture of image sensors and lenses and the like) combined with the volatility in commodity markets, leaves me rather amazed that the prices of these top-end lenses has not gone up considerably. I wouldn't have been surprised if, given the inflation in commodity markets, these new lenses (300mm, 400mm, 500mm, 600mm) hit the street at $12000-18000.

Jrista, I never said the version 2 is the same lens with some updates. I also didn't make the comparison of specialty DSLR equipment, to computers. You implied I did, but I did not. I compared automobiles...and more R&D is spent on them than on specialty camera gear...by orders of magnitude in some cases.

By your logic, the next leap forward in price, given inflation and the supposed added costs of R&D, for a version 3 lens a decade from now, would be...what? $45,000? Or rather, in terms of what the dollar will actually be worth at that time...$1 trillion?

What rare earth metals are used in the manufacture of these lenses? Is a lot of platinum or palladium used? Cerium, perhaps for polishing? I assume lanthanum is used, perhaps for coatings...has the price of these skyrocketed recently? I wonder how much of the actual cost to manufacture a lens, goes for rare earth elements? I doubt it's all that high of a percentage. Aside from R&D, the cost usually goes to energy, tooling and labor...especially since these aren't made by industrial slaves in China.

I am not arguing that the new lenses aren't worth the current asking price. However, if that price ever comes down, what does that mean? Does that mean they were really worth whatever the market could bear, and after the newness wears off, the market can't bear so much? How much money, is enough for you? Will you ever have enough? I don't think I'll ever have enough disposable income to collect a full set of supertelephoto lenses like many seem to do, but you never know. I'm happy for you that you can. Not all of us can.